ICA

The Internet Commerce Association (ICA) just emailed its membership to notify them that longtime ICA Counsel Phil Corwin is leaving the organization to pursue another opportunity. Taking his place as Counsel on an interim basis is intellectual property (and domain industry) attorney Zak Muscovitch.

Commenting on Phil’s departure, the ICA shared the following with its members (I received permission to publish this):

“While no one can replace Phil, we will look for new counsel with particular strengths in the priorities we see ahead of us in our second decade. We see the next 18-24 months as critical for the domain industry. In the policy arena there are ongoing initiatives that have the potential to dramatically impact our ability to protect our assets and conduct business. There are large, well-funded and determined players working to change domain intellectual property law in ways that could dramatically impact our community. The ICA has been working for months to develop a comprehensive long-term strategy to counter these movements and we think we have a solid plan that, with your help and support, will protect the future of domain investing.

ICA’s 2018 mission will focus on three core areas; first, Represent and defend the domain community in policy matters affecting us. Second, Promote a positive perception of the domain community through education and engagement with policy makers, journalists, and others whose work influences our industry. Third, Build a supportive community among our members. We believe by focusing on these three core areas, we can make the biggest impact for our membership.

Phil has left the ICA is a strong position. In our first decade, Phil put us on the map, establishing us an important stakeholder in the ICANN policy development process, and successfully advocated on dozens of issues large and small that profoundly benefited the domain industry. He leaves an enduring legacy as one of the architects of the policy framework that governs the domain name system. We wish Phil well in his new endeavors. Phil will remain on the ICA-mail and ICA-social list for a few days and will have access to ICA’s NamePros forum, should anyone wish to reach him there. His responses may be delayed as he is embarking on a 25-hour trip back from ICANN 60 in Abu Dhabi this evening.

The ICA Board is excited about the opportunity to continue our growth building on the foundation that Phil created. We’ll be reaching out to our membership to solicit your support and guidance during this transition. ”

Phil has become one of the most recognizable faces of the ICA, and his presence will be missed at ICANN meetings and various events where he represented the ICA and domain name owners. Throughout the years, the ICA has done a great job of protecting the interests of domain name owners, and I am confident the Board of Directors will be able to find someone who will continue to advocate to ICANN, governments, and organizations on behalf of our group.

I wish Phil all the best, and I look forward to hearing about his permanent replacement.

Let’s say you register a domain name today. You’ve done your due diligence, and you see there aren’t any companies that use the keyword(s) in your domain name as a trademark or for their brand name. A few years from now, some company launches with its brand matching your domain name.

The company now wants your matching domain name, but they don’t want to pay you for it – they want to take it from you. Until recently the company could file a UDRP complaint seeking the transfer of your domain and reasonably hope to succeed in being awarded your domain by the UDRP panel. The company would rely on a fringe interpretation of the UDRP known as “Retroactive Bad Faith” (RBF) that some panelists used to justify the transfer of long registered domain names to owners of trademark rights that arose since the domain was registered.

RBF had been cited in a number of UDRPs. One particular case that stands out is the UDRP for Camilla.com. Here’s what Andrew Allemann wrote about that UDRP decision, which ended in a transfer ruling in favor of the complainant:

For the domain industry, the part of the Lord is played by the U.S. Government and ICANN.

In the early days of the Internet, the U.S. Government policy allowed billions of dollars of domains to be registered on a first-come first-served basis for a registration fee per domain of $100 or less.

Those of us who benefited from this “landrush” know how fortunate we’ve been. Even those domainers who weren’t involved in the early days, benefit from the tremendous value inherent in domain names that is still not fully recognized.

But it is a mistake to confuse being lucky with being smart.

Being smart is taking full advantage of the good luck that comes your way and not taking it for granted. That is why I consider it smart to

I just registered to attend the upcoming ICANN gTLD meeting in New York City on Monday, July 13, 2009. There is no cost to register for the event, and I recommend that domain owners in the New York area attend the meeting.

This may be the last chance to express your opinion, as a domain name owner, about the IRT and URS proposal. At the very least, it’s a good opportunity to meet ICANN leaders and learn about how ICANN works.

If you can’t make it to the NYC meeting, other meetings are scheduled for locations around the world, including London (July 15, 2009), Hong Kong (July 24, 2009) and Abu Dhabi (August 4, 2009). Again, it’s free and easy to register online.

If you own a domain name, I implore you to read the IRT Proposal to form your own opinion of its contents. If you have any issues with it, please take a few moments to write a comment to ICANN – today is the final day to make your comments heard. You can also read other comments that were submitted.

It is my opinion that the Uniform Rapid Suspension System is dangerous to domain owners, and I submitted an email comment explaining why I believe this. The only way for my opinion to be heard is via the public comment forum, and I wanted ICANN and those who follow ICANN to see (and address) my issues.

While the odds are great that a URS dispute won’t be filed against a domain name you own, it is very likely that one will be filed against someone who owns a generic domain name. Now is the final opportunity to provide your comments about the proposal – not 6 months or a year from now when a legitimate domain name or website is taken offline by an overzealous trademark attorney.

As I stated in my submission, I do believe the intent of the proposal is good, and it probably won’t impact the majority of ordinary domain owners and small businesses such as mine. However, just like there are domain owners who don’t take the legal/ethical high ground, I believe there will be trademark interests who use the URS as a way to secure domain names in a less expensive manner than direct acquisition. For those domain names and owners that become targets, fighting URS complaints will be a very costly endeavor.

It’s likely that it won’t be your domain name that is targeted, but if you are unlucky and a large company wants your domain name, the costs associated with defending your rights could be very high.

DomainInvesting.com is an award winning publication covering the specialized business of domain name investing, domain investment news and strategy. The publication is a news source for domain name sales, domain industry deals, and other topics related to domain investing and domain name branding.